Saturday, January 26, 2013

Best Picture: "Rebecca," 1940


Movie Stats:
Released 1940 (USA)
American, in English (there’s a tiny bit of non-translated French)
Director – Alfred Hitchcock
Stars – Laurence Olivier, Joan Fontaine (who is Olivia de Havilland’s sister, which I never knew before!), and Judith Anderson

Plot Summary:
While working as a paid companion to an elderly woman in Monte Carlo, an innocent, naïve young woman (Fontaine) – she's never given a first name in the movie – meets a mysterious and handsome widower by the name of Maxim de Winter (Olivier). After a whirlwind romance, the two marry. Soon, Maxim moves his young bride back to his estate, Manderley, where his first wife, Rebecca, died. The new Mrs. de Winter strives to be “perfectly happy,” but the memory of Rebecca seems to cast a powerful shadow over Manderley, and secrets abound. Judith Anderson stars as the supremely creepy housekeeper Mrs. Danvers.

Bad Stuff:
The film moved really slowly. At the same time, everyone spoke very quickly, like they wanted to see how many words they could cram into one sentence. It was disorienting.

In a way, it didn’t really “feel” like a Hitchcock film. Perhaps this is because I’ve mostly seen his later films, which were more action-packed (i.e. “The Birds” and “North by Northwest”). This was less suspenseful and more baseline creepy.

Good Stuff:
Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers. She was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. She should have won.

It does a great job of setting the tone right from the very beginning.

The Verdict:
[THIS VERDICT WILL CONTAIN SOME MINOR SPOILERS.]

On the one hand, I didn’t really like this movie. I thought it was boring.

On the other hand, the more I thought about it, the more I began to appreciate the mastery of it. At the beginning of the movie, I really disliked Maxim. I hated the way he treated the young woman. I hated the fact that the only reason he seemed to want her was because of her innocence. It felt like he was using her. It also made me dislike the young woman for being so stupid as to fall for someone who would mistreat her so.

However, as the tale grinds toward its end, you come to understand why Maxim is the way he is, and why it was important for him to find a wife like her. His intentions are not so nefarious as they seemed.  He is not, in fact, the villain. By the time you get to the big reveal of what was truly going on at Manderley before Rebecca died, it actually is kind of shocking.

The manipulation was subtle enough that I didn’t even get that it had manipulated me until long after the movie was over. I think that’s very impressive. So while I might not have liked it so much, I really respect it. It is that respect which leads me to giving this movie 3.25 stars.

3 comments:

  1. I saw this as a teenager and liked it enough to read the book on which the movie is based. For me, the image of the pillow burning has stuck with me, even if I can't quite remember the nefarious things that were happening to cause said scene.

    I think this was also the movie producer David O. Selznick (He of Gone With the Wind fame) used to lure Hitchcock from England. I watch a great documentary called something like "Hitchcock and Selznick" which was very interesting, the contrast between the two men.

    Wait, the internet tells me it's called "Hitchcock, Selznick and the End of Hollywood." Here's a link.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181577/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you think that the book was better than the movie? Just curious.

    That movie sounds very interesting. I feel like I should start a "movies to watch" list, but I fear that it would be too much like my "books to read" list, which just grows longer and longer as I fall further behind. /sigh

    Like you said, I need a meth habit or something, haha.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have vague memories of liking the book better than the movie. But I don't know why.

    And I love my "to-read" list on Goodreads. I've started calling it the place where books go to die.

    ReplyDelete